Bunnell Mayor in Stunning Maneuver Revives 8,000-Home Development Commission Killed 2 Weeks Ago

The Bunnell City Commission in a stunning move at the very end of its meeting Monday night, before a nearly empty chamber, voted 3-2 to revive the 8,000-home Reserve at Haw Creek development the commission rejected just two weeks ago. The item was not on the agenda. 

Mayor Catherine Robinson prompted the motion, which Commissioner Pete Young offered without batting an eye–or asking questions–though Young had been in the 3-2 majority to reject the proposal on June 9. Robinson had met with the city manager and the developer for three hours Monday morning. She said the developer was prepared to submit a revised plan that takes public concerns into account. 

Young said he’d met with City Manager Alvin Jackson and others on Friday to discuss the development and to let Jackson know he was supportive of Haw Creek as long as it made certain changes. “I met with the city manager and our people,” Young said in an interview today. He wasn’t sure if the developer was among those in the room. “All know is I told them what I would like to see and they said OK, we’ll pass it on to them.” 

With Young’s reversal, the motion to reconsider carried, 3-2, with Commissioners John Rogers and David Atkinson as if in too much shock to comment. Rogers walked out immediately after the vote and the gavel to end the meeting, not addressing anyone in the room. 

Some of the few people who were left in the audience were in also shock. Allison Nobles, a Bunnell resident, had called the city clerk the day before the commission meeting to ask if there was anything new on the Reserve at Haw Creek, “and was told that there was no update,” she said, “so I’m, like, shocked that we’re at the end of today’s meeting, hearing that there is new news, so to speak.” 

The commission chamber at the Government Services Building was filled with about 100 people when the meeting started at 7 p.m., the majority of them there to speak their opposition to a planned rezoning of some 1,300 acres from agricultural to industrial designations. The rezoning application had been on the agenda but was pulled, as that plan is being reconfigured. 

Robinson before the public comment segment explained that to the audience. “I’m just in transparency letting you know, so that you understand how this process is working,” she said. She did not let the audience know that she would be asking for a motion on the Haw Creek development, even though most of the people opposed to the rezoning were equally concerned about–and opposed to–the Haw Creek development. 

After numerous people spoke against the rezoning for almost an hour, most filed out. The commission turned to the business on its agenda. That took all of 20 minutes, including reports by individual commissioners about meetings they’ve attended. 

Just before 8:30 p.m., Robinson pulled her surprise. 

“I have a request based on a meeting with city staff and the Northeast Florida developers about the Haw Creek development to address both the public and the commission’s concerns,” the mayor said. “I would like a motion to reconsider the denial of the rezoning application and move forward with the development agreement.”

She was not finished speaking when Young chimed in: “Madam mayor–” 

Robinson spoke over him: “Could I have a motion to reconsider this for the next available meeting in August?”

Not a split second later, Young said again: “Madame Mayor, I’d like to make a motion to revisit this reserve at Haw Creek development.” Sechrist seconded. The attorney corrected them: the motion had to be a reconsideration of both the planned unit development and the development agreement. Young corrected himself. 

In the interview today, Young said “I was hoping it would come up. I was wanting it to come up,”  though he did not brought it up during the segment devoted to commissioners’ comments. 

Robinson said the developer wants to resubmit a “PUD or development agreement, I’m not exactly sure which document. But there have been some modifications with what was being presented, and they want to reconsider and represent.” 

In an interview today, Jackson said the developer is willing to revisit the number of housing units and to address the geographic location of duplexes and apartment buildings,  because existing residents on the rim of the development have complained that apartment buildings would tower over their properties. That’s also Young’s principal concern. “I’m flexible. If they come up with the things I want, then they’ll have my vote. But I’m flexible,”  Young said. 

Commissioner David Atkinson did not comment. He only wanted to make sure the item would not return the first week in August, when he could not attend. Rogers did not comment, either. In a text today, he said of the motion for reconsideration: “I didn’t support it or vote for it because it simply wasn’t clearly listed on the agenda.” It was not listed at all. 

“So, a surprise for this room,” Larry Rogers told the commission. He was among a handful of people–perhaps 10–still in the room at that point. Rogers–no relation to the commissioner–had taken a lead role in the opposition to Haw Creek. He told commissioners of his surprise at the unusual maneuver and wondered how the developer had convinced commissioners to get the reconsideration. “Why is the commission two weeks later, with no notice, none of us, I don’t think had any idea that this was coming, considering allowing a reconsideration of this without any distribution of information, anything at all?” he asked. 

“So all I would say is I urge this commission to vote no on this amendment or this reconsideration at this point in time. Makes absolutely no sense to anybody else in this room,” Rogers said, returning to the podium after his initial comment. “We all know it’s coming back, and that’s fine, but to do it in this manner, I think, is a travesty for all the effort and everything that’s gone on in the last two years. And I would urge this group right now, our city leaders, to say, No, this is not the appropriate time.  It’s not the appropriate place. We’re not shoving it back on the agenda, and we’re going to conduct an evaluation, and we’re going to let the public be involved in it so that we don’t go through what we just went through for the last two years.” 

Cory Romaniuk, a Bunnell planning board member who’s supported the development when it went before his board, lent his support to the reconsideration, saying the vote two weeks ago was based on “a lot of mistakes.” Bonita Robinson, a former city commissioner, was also supportive of the reconsideration, claiming “the city is going broke.” The proposed development would generate revenue for the city’s infrastructure, she said. 

Robinson justified the move. “The idea of this is to bring it back up for reconsideration based on the meeting that we had this morning,” the mayor said, “and the concessions that the developer has worked through to try to salvage this product project for the good of the community and for the concerns that were brought forward, and so we’ll see as they Come back. But this will be noticed. It will be public. This is not some gotcha thing. It’s just the ability for our board, if they vote for it, to put it back on the agenda.”